32 Comments - Pete - Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 6:37 am: Things that happened in peoples’ pasts are not relevant today. This is a theme of the modern media. Took drugs in the past? No problem. Ditched a draft? No problem. Cheated on your wife (repeatedly)? No problem. Had sexual relations with people you weren’t supposed to? No problem. Crooked business deals? No problem. Abused a position of authority? No problem. If it is ok for the ruling class to invalidate the actions of their past and state it has no bearing on the present, why can’t everyone else? There are no standards anymore, Rich. Everything is grey. So get off your high horse. You have no right to sit in judgement of these people no matter how much they ‘disgust’ you. And beleive me, Ryan will not serve one day in the pen, and it won’t be because of these jurors. - Not Tellin - Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 7:41 am: Rich, I have to agree with Pete (though without the snark). You’re way too hard on these folks. Sometimes people forget. Who puts down run-ins with the law when you were 18? People just don’t think of those incidents as crimes — they think of rapists, murderers, etc. - Navin Johnson - Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 7:50 am: For those of us who have followed George Ryan’s career, the assault on the jurors is nothing new. At many criticial junctures of his crime laden political career whistleblowers, journalists and opponents have pointed out Ryan’s unethical and criminal conduct. The usual response, what we are seeing now, a seek and destroy mission against the credibility of those that dared to call out George Ryan for the crook he is. Many a pundit has complained that Fitzgerald is criminalizing politics. I’d argue there is a movement afoot to criminalize jury duty. If George is unsuccessful on his appeal I look forward to the apologies offered by those that are demonizing the jurors. The apologies will probably come right after George finally and publicly accepts responsibility for his misdeeds. I only wish there had been one-tenth of the outrage in the 1990s over George Ryan’s crimes while in public office as we are seeing now about the conduct of regular citizens sitting in a jury box. Maybe we could have avoided this whole disaster if Ryan had been hounded from office back then. - Paul Powell - Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 8:06 am: Surely all you who are so critical of this jury cannot be serious. I agree, the jurors should not be on trial. Ryan attorneys should lay off the jurors. Twelve people have spoken with one voice. We cannot let the juror story one up the conviction of a man who thus far does not accept any of the findings of guilt. By the way, who is speaking up for the dead kids? W & S, they don’t seem to give a rip about the kids. Where is that story? These lawyers make me absolutely sick and those in the media that continue to promote this vile conduct have a special place. You all need to get over it and keep those crying towels handy, George is going to the big house sooner rather than later. - Ragin RINO - Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 8:34 am: Pete, based on your logic, why was George even on trial? What he did was in the past, was it not? - dumb ol' country boy - Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 8:51 am: OKay stop…We all want to start holding out politicians feet to the fire, making them answer for their actions or lack there of, how can we not hold everyone to those same standards. The point of being truthful and answering questions truthfully on a questionaire, shows character, or lack there of. Everyone has a “past” so to speak, with “skeletons” in their closet, but some closets contain cemetaries. Just like you, Pete, not allowing George to spin his way out of the ” I did not know” defense, like wise to not allow a few members of a jury, who all had something to gain from being on this jury, weasel their way out of lying to the feds. It appears that would be a double standard, would it not ? But I also believe since the Judge removed some memebers of the jury for lying, then they all should have been treated the same, and removed. A lie is a lie is a lie, no matter if it’s about a simple battery or a drug possession. The whole jury should have been held to the same standard, because the were not, hence forth more grey area. - Anon - Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 9:03 am: I completely agree with you Rich. As a former Assistant State’s Attorney I truly believe that integrity in every facet of the system is absolutely crucial. I used to represent “the people of Illinois” which included making sure that any defendant got a fair and impartial experience with the justice system. I am not a fan of former governor Ryan but he, along with every other accused person deserves an absolutely fair trial. I think it is absolutely disturbing that someone would purjor themselves and then sit in judgement of another person. Our justice system is the bedrock of this country. It used to be said that it was better to let a thousand guilty people go free than to convict one innocent person. I have no doubt Ryan is guilty of at least some of the charges brought against him but just the appearance of impropriety is enough to give me pause in this verdict. - Biracialist - Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 9:12 am: This is what happens when we have a jury system that only allows idiots who haven’t watched the news or read a paper in 10 years to sit on high-profile political trials. If Judges can be trusted to make impartial decisions without segregating themselves from the news, why can’t we expect the same from jurors. I was sickened when they were interviewing the jurors after the trial and one was asked “Was it hard to stay away from the news?” and he replied, “No, that’s why they picked me.” I don’t know if George is innocent or guilty, but I don’t want idiots making that decision. - Bill - Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 9:23 am: Rich is right. Why would the judge throw off 2 admittedly pro-aquittal jurors and none of the others who did the same thing or worse? 12 people spoke with one voice after the two dissenters were kicked off. If only one of them had been left on there probably on there would have been no verdict. I think Ryan is guilty but he should and probably will get off in the interest of fairness and the “process”. - Bob - Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 9:44 am: I finally have time to finish the jury verification process. I believe these procedures are necessary to give George Ryan a fair trial. After all his 40 years of public service entitle him to a decision of unquestionable honesty and free from any hint of graft or corruption. • The salvation of our judicial system is criminal background checks. We can thank George Ryan for exposing this glaring weakness and helping us to find the solution. But wait, the questionnaire was huge and criminal history is only a fraction of the information needed. • Criminal background checks will not always show information regarding driving violations including driving with a suspended, expired or revoked license, speeding ECT. Running MVR’s is vital when determining a fit jurist. • We will need to get their accident reports from the insurance CLUE system. This information is neccessary to determine if the jurist has ever been sued for bodily injury or property damage. • Come to think of it, we better check to see if he has any unpaid parking tickets, city sticker violations or run ins with municipalities which might influence the jurist decisions. Let’s not forget about building code violations. Those can also prejudice a jurist. • There are financial questions regarding judgments, bankruptcies and collections etc. will be verified by a credit report. • Medical questions will be verified via the insurance health and life insurance reporting history. That information is usually incomplete, however, so ordering medical records will be vital to determining truthfulness and fitness for service. • Employment questions will need to be verified by an outside firm but we can save money by having the same firm verify education statements. • I know this can be touchy but we will need to determine the mental health of the jurists. This can be difficult because many times this is not reported. A qualified private investigative firm can interview family, friends and neighbors to determine any unusual behavior. If a jurist is suspected of being mentally unstable a qualified analyst will determine truthfulness and fitness. • We will need to verify foreign born citizen’s historical information which will be quite costly and we should possibly consider only allowing US born citizens to serve. • Individuals suspected of being of mixed race will need DNA testing to determine what percentage of each particular race they are. • Background checks to determine whether jurist belong to any subversive groups will need to be performed to ascertain whether the jurist can fairly render a decision. • Question involving the use of illegal drugs will need to be verified by standard drug testing. - QueenB - Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 10:05 am: I completely agree with Rich on this one. This isn’t a matter of what’s on the jury pool’s rap sheets. No one cares if it’s a speeding ticket or aggravated assault. They lied. And subsequently, compromised a case. I don’t know what it is about people these days who a) don’t own up to their mistakes, and b) don’t realize or acknowledge that their mistakes can and will affect others. No man is an island unto himself. - Pat Hickey - Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 10:17 am: As long as the tracks are laid, the railroad does not care a whit whose corpse is strapped to those tracks. For the people who want to line up with the anti-Ryan jurors ( great spirited and strong men like the clown who slapped a pregnant girl), they do not care a whit who was driving the train over George Ryan, his wife, his kids, the people threatened into being government witnesses for the prosecution, or the jurors sympathetic to Ryan or least open to the matters. Let the engine roll. - Papa Legba - Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 10:31 am: OK. To all who are complaining about the way the jury is being treated, why don’t you look at it from the other side before you rail on Rich’s position on this? Let’s say you were hauled in (mistakenly) for battery. You are innocent but you get booked, finger printed, post bond and go home with a court date. Your court date comes along and the jury finds you innocent of smacking that police officer in the mouth. You would be a happy camper wouldn’t you? It was the correct verdict after all. But wait. Two weeks later you get summonded to go back and redo the whole thing because there were some idiot jurors who lied on their forms. So there you are staring at a possible guilty verdict, quality time in the county lock-up, extra lawyer costs, the whole ball of wax, just because some idiot “forgot” they beat the crap out of their sister. Leave the Ryan case out of this. This is just you as an individual. Wouldn’t you be a bit upset at getting a double hosing because of a juror or two who are lying idiots or worse, pathalogical liars? Or would you just shrug your shoulders and say “Oh well, s**t happens.” You would be wondering why no one checked this out before your first trial. No doubt about it. If the jurors committed perjury and it jeopardizes a verdict, what can possibly be right about the juror’s illegal actions? Nothing - you just don’t do it, you don’t commit an illegal act when you are responsible for deciding another persons future. Whether guilty of innocent. It would make me worried to be judged and have my future decided by my “peers” when they can’t even figure out the difference between right and wrong when filling out a slip of paper. - WHAT??????? - Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 10:34 am: The defense is not attacking the jury AFTER their decsision, these are arguments and motions that were made BEFORE the jury reached its verdict. The Tribune and kASS having started all of this make it seem like somehow the defense is NOW piling on the jury for their decision. Another lets just attack George assault. Can we get the facts straight here? Can we be just a little bit fair? How is it the defenses fault that these arguments and motions are NOW just being released when the COURT and the GOVERNMENT (wrongly) kept this info from the press and the public at the time of the trial. If you read the TRIB or some of these blogs you would think the defense has been doing nothing but attacking jurors and researching their backgrounds since the verdict. NOT TRUE. I will bet you that the information in these motions and arguments made BEFORE the verdict also came from the FBI and the COURT’s investigation of the jurors DURING deliberations and they had to turn the info over to the defense and they then used it in their motions BEFORE, not after, the verdict. The Tribune having started all of this should be called to account for their FALSE and obviously malicious reporting on this. - Truthful James - Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 10:35 am: Anon 9:03 Former assistant state’s attorney? “purjor”? Can you use “Spiel Chuck”? - WHAT??????? - Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 10:38 am: ….And another thing, why is the COURT just trickling out this information? Why is this stuff being unsealed (shouldnt have been kept from the press in the first place) piecemeal? Why have the transcripts of the secret court meetings not being released? Is the judge still editing the transcripts? Why have they not YET BEEN RELEASED. I guess when they finally are released the Tribune will also report this again as if this is some NEW attack on the jurors by the defendants. - ChicagoCynic - Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 10:40 am: Sorry Rich, normally I agree with you, but I think you’re waaayyyy off. You think these are the first jurors who have ever not been fully candid in their questionnaires? I agree that the fact a number of them lied about decades old cases is troubling. But it seems that Pallmeyer removed the ones where their lies could have created unfair prejudices for or against (particularly the one where the person repeatedly had their license suspended by the SOS office). Nobody in this country is promised a perfect trial, only a fair one. Can anyone argue that George Ryan with his free $15 million defense team (don’t forget the 10 million figure was from months ago) didn’t receive a fair trial. Give me a break. Frankly, if there’s anyone to blame for this jury problem, it’s the defense counsel (who I don’t think did a particularly good job anyway). You know they spent gobs of money on jury consultants. They couldn’t spend a few hundred to run quickie background checks on the jurors AT THE START OF THE TRIAL. That was the right time to investigate this and complain about it where appropriate. This was all available to even the lamest investigators. These problems are no reason for the Ryan defense team to be putting the jurors through the public mill like this. It’s disgraceful. Jury service is not a gift, it’s a chore and in the case of a multi-month trial, it’s an enormous chore. Who can afford to give up that kind of time? I’ve got jury duty next week and I can’t even afford to give up the day. I think these people should be thanked for their service, and gently chastised about being more forthcoming in the future. The court and the lawyers should then learn their lessons and move on because NONE of the questions raised change the facts of the case and they shouldn’t change the result. And while we’re at it, George better start demonstrating a little bit of contrition if he doesn’t want to die in jail. Right now, he has an audience of one (Pallmeyer) and he needs to start playing to that audience. - Anonymous - Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 10:43 am: Truthful James, Very funny - I noticed that myself. Maybe that’s why he’s a “former” state’s attorney. - ChicagoCynic - Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 10:45 am: WHAT??????? , You’re right - their motions were made before. But not until after the trial was over and the deliberations were underway. I still say it was way too late for that and they should have done their homework at the beginning. And if you think it’s not the defense lawyers leaking this stuff to the press I’ve got a few lovely bridges to sell you over the Chicago River. They have a great view and I own the title. Really I do. - Sammy Esposito - Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 10:52 am: Notice how the ledes in both the Trib and Sun-Times stories today kicked around “lawyers” for digging into and exposing the pasts of various Ryan jurors? Haven’t newspaper reporters been doing plenty of digging and exposing too? Journalist are great at holding others accountable, but they’re not so tough on themselves. And, by the way, is the Tribune going to explain why they were successful in finding dirt on jurors who just so happened to be sympathetic to Ryan (which led to them being dismissed,) and not so successful in exposing the past of jurors who voted to convict? Was it sloppy reporting? Or, as Rich Miller and others are wondering, was the information on the dismissed jurors leaked to them by the feds? Please explain, Tower dwellers. - Raging RINO - Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 11:04 am: Love the posters who have to point out spelling errors….man, if that’s what makes you feel better God help you. - WHAT??????? - Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 11:15 am: from the Daily Herald: “According to court records, U.S. District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer ordered FBI background checks on jurors after issues were brought up in the press about the alleged criminal records of two jurors during deliberations. The two jurors were removed, and deliberations restarted. The checks apparently led to revelations about the pasts of four other jurors who did not reveal previous court issues on the surveys used by attorneys picking the panel. Those jurors were not removed, despite defense arguments for a mistrial.” - Anonymous - Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 11:17 am: No RagingRINO, it’s not about making anybody feel better. It’s about wondering how someone who supposedly was an Assistant States Attorney could possibly screw up and misspell PERJURY unless, oh I don’t know, maybe THEY’RE NOT REALLY a former assistant state’s attorney. Maybe they were just making that up to bolster their argument about how jurors shouldn’t lie on their forms and how it brings into question the verdict. Kinda makes one wonder. - Truthful James - Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 11:22 am: Raging RINO: “Nobody’s prefect.” - dumb ol' country boy - Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 12:02 pm: This is not about what lies where told, don’t you all rememebr what your parents taught you???? The fact of the matter is, members of the jury where not treated the same after it was revealed that several had told lies, and a far a Chicago’s statement…. “But it seems that Pallmeyer removed the ones where their lies could have created unfair prejudices for or against (particularly the one where the person repeatedly had their license suspended by the SOS office).” This statment doesn’t hold water because that was not the ONLY juror removed. Im not so sure what the Judge was thinking, but I’m sure she’s reviewing transcripts as we speak, trying to figure it out. Once again, a lie is a lie is a lie, no matter what the substance!!!!!! - zatoichi - Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 12:18 pm: Ryan’s attorneys should stop trying to find some weasel room to get out of this conviction. He was caught and the jury said your are guilty. The appeal process will take forever or at least until Ryan dies. It is the height of hypocracy to cheat your way through something, repeatedly break rules, get caught, and then say it’s not fair to convict me because members of the jury did something 10 years ago. Jury of your peers. Seems like attorneys on both sides were prety lax with the jury selection, but they chose them. Do not go crying after the fact because you lost. However, I do like the basic concept that if I do lots of good things I should qualify for a get out of jail card for whatever offense I did. Yeah, that’s reality. Maybe George can get a political patronage favor from a follower who will do his jail time. He apparently had lots of people willing to do stuff for him before. - Justice is blind - Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 12:21 pm: Ironic that those on trial swear an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth…shouldn’t they then expect the jury to follow that same rule when filling out this paperworl? - ChicagoCynic - Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 12:27 pm: Justice, Someone should correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think jury questionnaires are filled out under penalty of perjury. They take an oath when the trial begins, but that’s different. You can’t prosecute someone for perjury based on what they wrote on a jury form. Perhaps they should, though that seems a bit extreme. I still say the onus is on the lawyers in the case. - Della Street - Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 12:50 pm: The process by which the government, the defendant(s) and the court empanel a jury is known as “voir dire.” It roughly translates as “to speak the truth.” Voir dire is an examination of prospective jurors to determine their competency to serve as jurors for a specific trial. In a criminal trial, the prosecutors, defense lawyers, and the presiding judge have an opportunity to investigate, question and challenge prospective jurors. In order to better evaluate this situation, it would be best to review whatever transcripts may exist of the voir dire of the jury pool for this trial. Perhaps an enterprising journalist like Rich Miller could begin to dig into it. It would help us all understand how we ended up with this specific jury. - SalukiDog - Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 1:17 pm: Papa Legba (10:31) makes a great analogy. Rich, I am with you on this one. This is a very serious issue. - Bob - Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 1:18 pm: I’ll bet Ryan received a fairer trial than 99% of defendants. He lost. For those who don’t like it “Boo freakin hoo” - Anon - Monday, Apr 24, 06 @ 7:18 pm: I bet the Ryan prosecutors/FBI would not mind clearing all this mess up and restoring our faith in the system and government by simply submitting to a quick poly on the issue of whether they leaked the story to the tribune. I’m sure they have all been subject to them before so this should be no big deal. Right? Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.